Decided on March 24,1952

R.Umanatha Rao Appellant
STATE Respondents


RAMASWAMI, J. - (1.) THIS is an unusual criminal revision case filed against an unusual order made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Tiruchirapalli division in Crl.M.P. No. 82 of. 1952 in Sessions Case No. 53 of 1951.
(2.) BEFORE entering into the merits of this case, I may point out that in a circular issued. by the High Court of Madras dated 10th. January 1951 interlocutory petitions of this nature are thoroughly deprecated and the Honourable -Judges point out as follows: 'Instances have come up to the High Court which disclose that a system of procedure not contemplated by the Code is developing in the subordinate criminal courts. la warrant cases (and a fortiori in Sessions eases also) accused persons before they are charged and put upon their defence anticipate their defence by petitions raising preliminary points upon which the court passes judgment. These are then brought up on revision to the High Court pending which, the trialof the case is adjourned. The High Court desires to impress upon.' the lower courts that, this procedure is unwarranted and makes for delay and extra work. An accused person has no right to raise a preliminary point before he is charged. He must wait to defend himself till he is charged and it he is convicted, his first remedy is in most cases by way of appeal.' I need not dwell upon the mischief caused by such a procedure. The trial of a case degenerates rates into trials within a trial, and the trial Judge is compelled to prematurely commit himself to one view or another, and what is more, when the matter is taken up to the High Court, the High Court by going into the merits of these contentions increases the risk of premature disposals on points which ought to be really disposed of at the end of the case and considered at the time of writing the judgment and the due reasons: given for the conclusions arrived at by the Judge, which will enable the appellate court to be fully seized of the matter and bring its own mind to bear upon the points in controversy and satisfactorily dispose of the entire case against the accused, be it one -of conviction or of acquittal. It is, therefore, really astonishing that: the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mr, B.. R. Chakravarti, has allowed himself to embark upon such a detailed exposition of the -points raised before him, which ought to be really relegated to the time when these matters should its considered, viz., after hearing: the defence and while writing the Judgment. I must attribute it only to the comparative inexperience in criminal work of the Additional Sessions Judge and it is to be hoped that there will be no further repetition either by him or by other subordinate courts of this State.
(3.) THE Additional Sessions Judge is trying; what is popularly known as the Tiruchirapalli Conspiracy case and the prosecution case has been closed and the Judge has started recording the statements of the accused under Section 342, Criminal P.C. It is at this stage the accused invited the Judge to pass orders on three specific points before the statements were recorded. I directed the Additional Sessions Judge to get along with the recording of the statements under Section 342, Criminal P.C. and promised to pass orders on Monday on this case.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.